PURSHOTTAM TULSYAN @ PURSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP along with learned O.P. No.2.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the deed of agreement dated 08.08.2009 which happens to be part and parcel of the written report, it is evident that whatever allegation has been attributed in the written report could not draw the criminal prosecution nor the civil suit till existence of the agreement in pursuance of the deed of agreement. To substantiate such plea, referred para-6 of the agreement and said that none of the parties have been authorized to ask for revocation, cancellation, termination of the agreement which has been made effective for five years and so, even on the date institution of the case i.e. 25.07.2013 the agreement was in operation and that being so, the instant FIR followed with the order of cognizance dated 23.04.2016 passed in connection with Amas P.S. Case No.96/2013 by sri Gorakh Nath Dubey, J.M., Ist Class, Sherghati, Gaya summoning the petitioner to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 504, 506 of the IPC is fit to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that the criminal case has been instituted not for the property falling under the deed of agreement nor with regard to due rent rather this case has been instituted on account of dubious activity of the petitioner who, with a criminal intention indulged in a transportation of the stone moram belonging to the O.P. No.2 which the O.P. No.2 had under the license to a tune of Rs.13,90,000/-. That being so, instant criminal prosecution is sustainable and in likewise manner, the order of cognizance. So submitted that the order impugned is fit to be confirmed.